netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: return error when esp offload is requested and not supported

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210315104350.GY62598@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Mon, 15 Mar 2021 11:43:50 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>
CC:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Yossi Kuperman <yossiku@...lanox.com>,
        Guy Shapiro <guysh@...lanox.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <antony@...nome.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: return error when esp offload is requested and not
 supported

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:36:11AM +0100, Antony Antony wrote:
> When ESP offload is not supported by the device return an error,
> -EINVAL, instead of silently ignoring it, creating a SA without offload,
> and returning success.
> 
> with this fix ip x s a would return
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
> 
> Also, return an error, -EINVAL, when CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD is
> not defined and the user is trying to create an SA with the offload.
> 
> Fixes: d77e38e612a0 ("xfrm: Add an IPsec hardware offloading API")
> Signed-off-by: Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>

I feal a bit unease about this one. When we designed the offloading
API, we decided to fallback to software if HW offload is not available.
Not sure if that was a good idea, but changing this would also change
the userspace ABI. So if we change this, we should at least not
consider it as a fix because it would be backported to -stable
in that case. Thoughts?